U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-04-2009, 02:59 AM
 
2,633 posts, read 4,458,337 times
Reputation: 586

Advertisements

I just think that people tend to forget that humans are just a collection of very specialized eukaryotic cells that work together in order to survive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2009, 09:05 AM
 
37,660 posts, read 25,365,683 times
Reputation: 5865
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin View Post
I just think that people tend to forget that humans are just a collection of very specialized eukaryotic cells that work together in order to survive.
Just for grins . . . you might try explaining how that cooperation got started under a survival of the fittest competition rubric among unicellular organisms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2009, 10:10 AM
 
4,669 posts, read 3,920,336 times
Reputation: 409
I've heard it said that the human eye is an example of something that couldn't have possibly evolved. It's incredibly complex.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2009, 10:16 AM
 
1,788 posts, read 4,160,429 times
Reputation: 1235
Quote:
Originally Posted by cncracer View Post
.

Water: one part oxygen two parts hydrogen in its liquid state. What could be simpler?
Simple, yes. But for the fact that the molecule has a 'bent' structure, life on this planet wouldn't exist. Simple, yet so stunningly important.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2009, 10:27 AM
 
Location: In the North Idaho woods, still surrounded by terriers
2,178 posts, read 6,166,993 times
Reputation: 973
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
I've heard it said that the human eye is an example of something that couldn't have possibly evolved. It's incredibly complex.
Beings, all creatures and plants etc evolve only when survival makes it necessary. So, perhaps the human eye (all eyes) was basically fine from the start and only evolved in shape and/or size to suit the needs of the human skull...I do not know. But I am pretty sure what you "heard" is not factual.

Last edited by esselcue; 02-04-2009 at 10:28 AM.. Reason: Typos sometimes haunt me!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2009, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Nashville, Tn
7,916 posts, read 16,443,070 times
Reputation: 5442
kdbrich wrote:
Quote:
I've heard it said that the human eye is an example of something that couldn't have possibly evolved. It's incredibly complex.
I've heard people say exactly the same thing but I believe they're not understanding how evolution actually works. Here's a pretty good link that helps to explain it:
You have to realize that evolution is not purpose driven with a specific goal in mind for any particular organism. I've heard creationists suggest that any animal that has eyesight today would have to have been blind until the eye was fully developed if evolution was creating it but this is completely false. The very primitive beginnings of an eye would simply be the ability to sense light. The link explains it pretty well and I've read a number of articles and books that deal with this subject and the general concensus is that evolution gradually improved light sensing abilities in small stages until it became complex and refined. It's interesting to note that now that we're a technological species we're correcting many of our biological problems with vision with technology. Afterall, we're the only animal that wears glasses or can correct problems with surgery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2009, 04:41 PM
 
2,633 posts, read 4,458,337 times
Reputation: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Just for grins . . . you might try explaining how that cooperation got started under a survival of the fittest competition rubric among unicellular organisms.
It's called game theory. It turns out that working together gives you(on average) a greater chance of survival than working alone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2009, 09:00 PM
 
37,660 posts, read 25,365,683 times
Reputation: 5865
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin View Post
It's called game theory. It turns out that working together gives you(on average) a greater chance of survival than working alone.
Ah . . . so what brain were these unicellular organisms using to evolve this "strategy" while simply pursuing their mindless survival against other unicellular organisms?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2009, 11:33 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,095,734 times
Reputation: 3719
Thumbs up "Bring the stage lighting come up please!"

Quote, above, from kdbrich: "I've heard it said that the human eye is an example of something that couldn't have possibly evolved. It's incredibly complex."

kd, you ain't trollin' agin here, is yah? I think I heard this line as well, from that same old bible-clutching lady on the bus you apparently overheard, on her way home from Church.

That incredibly old "argument" about how amazingly complex the human eye is, is just too tooo toooo moldy. You're startin' tah show your lack of creativity as well as the age of your arguments heah, man!

Here's what you gotta do if you really, seriously, have the cajones and curiosity to see and learn some new things.

Buy the January 2009 Scientific American and read it, thoroughly from cover to cover.

Study it, learn it, examine it from the hypothetical perspective that, just possibly, Evolution is "The Actual Answer" See, the reason is, because It Is!

My "agenda" that you've accused me of in the past on other threads? wquite simple, buddy.

I truly & honestly do want you to come to some inescapable conclusions by yourself because you surely won't ever believe it from any of us. SciAm's multi-dimensional, comprehensive and convincing presentation is just too well done. It doesn't purport to answer all the questions but you might get a glimmer of how we (science, scientists, as well as the human species' growing understanding of our world and its secrets) are advancing.

One foot in front of the other. Also note the obvious: that advancing and accumulating knowledge speeds the further advancement of knowledge. It's an exponential thing. To quote really old stuff only convinces objective but knowledgeable listeners that you may be very much out of step, running on very old stuff, or that you're intransigent. Stuff that's usually been either refuted, changed, confirmed or vastly improved.

Enlightenment Snowballs! (another Great Bumper Sticker, yeah?)

In an absolutely micro-nutshell: nothing is ever too complex that it can't be explained, once the logical basics are defined. A basic Lego-style building block system as functionally elegant (but simple) as DNA / RNA, and the basics of mutation coupling with the accumulation and reliable "documentation" of those beneficial changes within that DNA, explains how such things as optically sensitive cell structures have advanced. These systems have thus moved from simple abilities and purpose to focusable, directional, color- and light intensity-sensitive "units".

Primitive "wick carburettors" on Model Ts to the fuel injection systems in a Formula One race car engine: neither arrived via supernatural nose-wiggling, even though most people can likely explain in detail how the complex F1 system works.

Over the years in Scientific American, there are a number of elegant yet understandable explanations that will lead you through the evolution of the eye as the end product of some accumulated adaptations. These will definitely allow your mind to experience an "Ah-HaHHH!!!" moment.

It's quite rewarding and enlightening. And then you can really move on!

I truly hope you can and do, man. Truly.

Last edited by rifleman; 02-04-2009 at 11:38 PM.. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2009, 02:12 AM
 
2,633 posts, read 4,458,337 times
Reputation: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Ah . . . so what brain were these unicellular organisms using to evolve this "strategy" while simply pursuing their mindless survival against other unicellular organisms?
It wasn't brains that led mitochondria to be engulfed by a prokaryote. Random luck got them together and they survived long enough to reproduce because of game theory.

We have pretty cool evidence that has let us infer that this has happened several times sometime during the distant past:
Endosymbiotic theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
Evidence that mitochondria and plastids arose from ancient endosymbiosis of bacteria is as follows:
  • Both mitochondria and plastids contain DNA that is different from that of the cell nucleus and that is similar to that of bacteria (in being circular in shape and in its size).
  • They are surrounded by two or more membranes, and the innermost of these shows differences in composition from the other membranes of the cell. The composition is like that of a prokaryotic cell membrane.
  • New mitochondria and plastids are formed only through a process similar to binary fission. In some algae, such as Euglena, the plastids can be destroyed by certain chemicals or prolonged absence of light without otherwise affecting the cell. In such a case, the plastids will not regenerate.
  • Much of the internal structure and biochemistry of plastids, for instance the presence of thylakoids and particular chlorophylls, is very similar to that of cyanobacteria. Phylogenetic estimates constructed with bacteria, plastids, and eukaryotic genomes also suggest that plastids are most closely related to cyanobacteria.
  • DNA sequence analysis and phylogenetic estimates suggests that nuclear DNA contains genes that probably came from the plastid.
  • Some proteins encoded in the nucleus are transported to the organelle, and both mitochondria and plastids have small genomes compared to bacteria. This is consistent with an increased dependence on the eukaryotic host after forming an endosymbiosis. Most genes on the organellar genomes have been lost or moved to the nucleus. Most genes needed for mitochondrial and plastid function are located in the nucleus. Many originate from the bacterial endosymbiont.
  • Plastids are present in very different groups of protists, some of which are closely related to forms lacking plastids. This suggests that if chloroplasts originated de novo, they did so multiple times, in which case their close similarity to each other is difficult to explain. Many of these protists contain "secondary" plastids that have been acquired from other plastid-containing eukaryotes, not from cyanobacteria directly.
  • Among the eukaryotes that acquired their plastids directly from bacteria (known as Primoplantae), the glaucophyte algae have chloroplasts that strongly resemble cyanobacteria. In particular, they have a peptidoglycan cell wall between their two membranes.
  • These organelles' ribosomes are like those found in bacteria (70s).
  • Proteins of organelle origin, like those of bacteria, use N-formylmethionine as the initiating amino acid.
  • Mitochondria have several enzymes and transport systems similar to those of prokaryotes.
  • Mitochondria and plastids are about the same size as bacteria.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top